© The Financial Times Ltd 2014 FT and 'Financial Times' are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
Harvard Business School
The newest academic paper on Ben Edelman’s website is a 61-pager called “Price Coherence and Adverse Intermediation”. It is fair to say it has not attracted as much attention as the 3,500-word blogpost “The Darker Side of Blinkx” he posted on January 28. Two days later, shares in the UK-listed online video search company fell by a third.
How many eager young bankers is too many?
The question is raised by an FT report that the number of MBA recruits to banking is falling, less as a result of the job being unpopular than the possibility it won’t last.
Tom Braithwaite notes that the former enthusiasm for investment banking has eased among MBA graduates:
“The Wharton school at the University of Pennsylvania, which bankers consider the “conveyor belt of Wall Street”, sent 16.6 per cent of its class to investment banks in 2011 compared with more than one in four in 2008. The pattern is similar at other large business schools.”
David Willetts, Britain’s universities minister, has a bee in his two-brained bonnet about flawed incentives for British business academics.
Prestige in business schools comes from doing research and being published in peer-reviewed journals, he told an audience of managers, academics and members of parliament in London on Tuesday, launching a discussion of whether poor management is holding back growth. It’s a theme he’s touched on before in relation to wider scientific and academic research. Mr Willetts says that as the lead journals are US-based, they tend to be interested in sophisticated analysis of historical, mainly American, industry data:
We’re rewarding British academics and British business schools for analysing American industries… It’s not at all clear to me that this the right set of incentives.
This has an unwelcome tinge of nationalism but it is hard to argue with the underlying point. Read more
Harvard Business School has launched its big US competitiveness project. It’s a full-bore research-led effort dedicated to improving “the ability of firms operating in the US to compete successfully in the global economy, while supporting high and rising living standards for Americans”. How will non-American alumni feel about that?
Michael Porter, HBS’s competitiveness expert, is in the vanguard. He talked to me about how the US was starting to lag behind when I interviewed him in September, and he and colleague Jan Rivkin reiterate some of these themes in a video interview for the competitiveness project with Justin Fox of Harvard Business Review. As Porter says:
The US’s vitality and dynamism [are] really very fundamentally important to the global economy.
Fair enough. But the project does underline that HBS, for all its aspirations to attract more international students and faculty, is an American business school, with American preoccupations. There is something a little odd about hearing Nitin Nohria – the first HBS dean born outside the US – declare in another video interview that he “can’t think of a problem that affects everybody in the world, not just in the US, more than this question of US competitiveness”. Really? Read more
It is a shock to hear Muhtar Kent, chief executive of that quintessentially American company Coca-Cola, suggest that the US is now less friendly to business than China.
But Mr Kent’s comments – “In the west, we’re forgetting what really worked 20 years ago” – echo what I heard two weeks ago at Harvard when I talked to Michael Porter, perhaps the world’s best-known expert on competitiveness. Read more